Editorial: Obama for president

On every issue, and in every area that counts, the differences between the candidates for president of the United States this year could not be clearer. Nor could the choice. We urge our readers to vote for Barack Obama and his agenda of change.

We’re always skeptical when a candidate for any office promises change or, as we hear around Albany so much, reform. Often, all we get are big campaign-season generalities and a post-election letdown. But as this presidential race has progressed, Senator Obama has laid out a detailed, credible, persuasive and encouraging vision of change. It is one we endorse at a time when change is so clearly needed.

We are mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, flirting with a collision with an emerging nuclear power in Iran, struggling with a suffering economy and rising unemployment, racking up a crushing national debt, stalling on energy independence and, in the richest country in the world, failing to provide health care coverage to tens of millions of people, many of them children.

We are where we are in large part because of the policies and failures of President Bush. It is vital, then, that we don’t simply change the occupant of the White House, but replace Mr. Bush with someone who will chart an entirely different course.

We commend John McCain for his service to the nation as a warrior and a legislator. But on point after point, he echoes far too loudly the failed policies of the last eight years. He offers tax cuts that favor the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, and corporate giveaways that don’t encourage job creation at home. He espouses a health care plan that continues to foster a costly system while leaving millions of people to try to find affordable coverage and care. His energy program treats development of alternative and renewable energy — the true path to American independence from foreign oil — as an afterthought. Where Senator Obama proposes to rebuild our alliances and bring our adversaries to the table, Senator McCain approaches foreign policy with much the same brashness as President Bush.

With a willingness to reach bipartisan solutions, and an eloquence and appeal that his opponents have tried to mock, Senator Obama has the potential to be a unifying agent of change at this critical time.

Consider two areas — taxes and judgment — that illustrate the kinds of substantive proposals, and intangible qualities, that we believe make Senator Obama the right man for the White House.

According to an analysis by the independent Tax Policy Institute, Senator Obama’s tax plan would save middle-class families — those in the $37,600 to $66,400 range — $1,118 a year. It would also reverse the tax cuts under President Bush that were overly generous to the wealthy.

Senator McCain’s plan would give those same middle-class families less than a third of Senator Obama’s proposal — $325. The bottom 20 percent of earners, making less than $19,000, would save $567 under Senator Obama’s plan. Under Senator McCain’s? A paltry $21.

At the other end, Senator Obama would have the wealthy pay roughly what they did under President Reagan, when trickle-down economics was all the rage. Someone earning more than $603,400 would pay an additional $93,709 a year; those making over $2.87 million, $542,882 more.

Senator McCain turns the notion of a progressive tax system on its head. Under him, the richer one is, the more money one would not have to pay. Those earning more than $603,400 would save $48,862. Those with incomes exceeding $2.87 million would have an extra $290,708 in their pockets.

Senator Obama also wants to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and create tax credits for firms that add more decent jobs, with good benefits, for American workers. Senator McCain’s plan: Lower corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent, no strings attached. That’s not stimulus. That’s a gift from taxpayers that’s unlikely to give this country a return on its investment.

Senator McCain’s platform is grounded in the slogans of free markets and less government — the same ideology that after eight years has left us with an economy on the brink of disaster, bigger government, deficits where there once were surpluses, and a national debt that has skyrocketed from $5.7 trillion to $10.5 trillion.

To borrow a phrase undoubtedly being heard around millions of American kitchen tables these days: We can’t afford this anymore.

As for judgment, Senator Obama chose an experienced, respected lawmaker, Sen. Joseph Biden, as his running mate. Yes, Senator Biden can be verbose and undoubtedly was picked to balance Senator Obama’s relative youth and fewer years in national politics. But Senator Biden could certainly fill the position of president, should that become necessary.

In contrast, Senator McCain appears to have chosen his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, largely for her appeal to the right wing base. In the process, he alienated half of America. The choice also seems to have been a cynical attempt to appeal to disappointed supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. We New Yorkers know Hillary Clinton, and Governor Palin is no Hillary Clinton. She would be wholly unqualified to fill the office of president if she were called on to do so.

This is not merely about Governor Palin. It is also about one of the most important decisions a presidential candidate must make. This was not a wise choice for a man who asks us to trust him to protect America and represent all Americans. It suggests that, much like President Bush, he would let us remain a divided nation, putting party, not country, first.

Compared with the often negative race waged by the McCain-Palin campaign, Senators Obama and Biden have brought a positive, progressive and hopeful message to the American people. Senator Obama, an American success story himself, offers the best hope for a nation ready to turn the page and a write new chapter of prosperity, progress and peaceful security.

Economy: Obama’s proposed tax cuts would benefit more Americans than McCain’s. Obama’s economic plan creates disincentives for companies to ship jobs overseas, and rewards those that create new jobs back home. McCain would cut corporate tax rates with no trade-off in the form of creating American jobs.

Health care: Obama offers a balanced program that allows for the continuation of employer-based health coverage but creates a public plan, comparable to what members of Congress receive, that individuals and small business could buy into. Such a plan could have the negotiating clout to lower drug and health care costs. McCain’s proposal of a $5,000 credit per family toward the purchase of private health insurance would not begin to cover the cost of a typical policy.

Energy: Obama plans to invest $150 billion in clean and alternative energy and eliminate our need for oil from the Middle East and Venezuela in 10 years. He is also flexible on offshore drilling, not locked into a partisan stance. McCain focuses heavily on fossil fuels with a combination of offshore oil and natural gas drilling. His “alternative” energy plan is largely a $2 billion annual investment in clean coal technology, and 45 new nuclear plants.

Foreign policy: Obama advocates a responsible, phased withdrawal of most troops in 16 months. McCain’s plan is open ended. Obama’s foreign policy focuses on dealing with Afghanistan, discouraging North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, rebuilding alliances and diplomacy with adversaries like Iran. McCain, whose Web site lacks a specific outline of foreign policy, focuses on missile defense, a bigger military, a better intelligence.

Supreme Court: Obama hasn’t offered a detailed judicial philosphy, but has said he would look for judges who “have a sense of what real-world folks are going through” and stand up for people who are treated unfairly. McCain takes the conservative “strict constructionist” view; his Web site singles out “liberal judicial activists who have usurped the role of state legislatures in such matters as dealing with abortion and the definition of marriage.” Obama says the landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling on abortion was correct. McCain says it was wrong.

197 Responses

We have a strong reaction to biased information regarding your October 26th article, “Obama for president”. Since when does a regional newspaper make an exclusive decision to vote for an individual?
This is the United States of America. There will be both Obama and McCain on the ballot when we go to the polls; not just Obama.
Since your perspective only shows one candidate, we have determined your poor judgement of disrespect to be yet another reason to terminate our subscription to your newspaper. This time we will not be persuaded to renew.

Thank you Times Union for your front page of Perspective today. In black and white, the obvious differences between Obama and McCain are spelled out for all those who continue to support McCain and the failed policies of the GOP.

Trickle down economics means nothing to the middle class who are deep into a drought brought about by the destructive policies of the GOP. It is time for REAL change, not the change being promoted by a republican senator who, depsite his “mavrickness”, has consistently supported these policies of middle class destruction.Pailin has nothing to offer except winks and nods to pander to the right wing base and now the US is set to say ENOUGH!!

Now, I guess it’s time to sit back and start receiving the “feedback” of the GOP attacking your choice. “The first to raise their fist is the one who has run out of ideas.” It is obvious by their consistent attacks that the GOP has run out of ideas to solve the problems that confront us..

You do a good job on specifics, but miss the deeper principles of the Bush approach, which McCain has largely signed on to.
- Subordinate governing to politics, notably by installing commissars or “minders” from the White House at all agencies
- push social issues that are sure to deepen divisions, considered a benefit!
- reinforce Reagan’s mantra about government as the problem by cultivating incompetence
– deepen the historic (and healthy) skepticism of Americans to government into a corrosive cynicism.

I’m not surprised by your endorsement. I’ve read dozens of biased opinions over the years in your paper. It sickens me to watch a local newspaper be so one sided when you are basically the only game in town. I hope you will print a retraction someday when this guy completely screws up our country by taking away the freedoms that so many have been fighting for for so long. This guy has only one talent, he can manipulate people with words. His agenda is selfish and not for the good of the people. I hope all you fools get what you deserve. I also hope our founding fathers are praying for us, because we certainly are going to need divine intervention to get out of the mess he’s going to put us in.

DISAPPOINTING…I do not feel strongly for one candidate over another; however, I feel strongly that this article is grossly inappropriate for the Times Union to run. Why not run articles for BOTH candidates? I always viewed the TU in a positive light; however, in one day, in one article, my opinion has irreversibly changed. I can make the decision for myself, I don’t need my newspaper to sway me. I’m insulted. My subscription will be cancelled immediately.

I can not believe that the Times Union is actually endorsing Obama, or any candidate for that matter. It is a very sad commentary indeed and explains just what has happened to journalism over the last decade. You say Obama is the best candidate, and highlight his economy, health care and energy policies. As far as the economy, you detail his tax plan, that does not take into consideration how he is going to fund his Trillion in new spending that he is proposing. The article also fails to mention that Obama has expicitly said that he wants to spread the wealth around. This is not how a democracy works, but how a socialistic society works.

As far as Obama’s health care plan, there has been no mention or journalistic coverage as to the health care plan that was implemented in our neighboring state of Massachussets. Just try and go to a doctor in good old Mass., I have relatives who now find it next to impossible to get in and there are major lines at on call centers.

Before buying into Obama’s healthcare plan, one should first take a trip to Canada and visit a hospital-I have as of neccessity, but was fortunante to be able to have the choice of driving back over the border to the Erie Medical Center in Buffalo. The waiting time in the Canadian hospital was over 6 hours do to a shortage of healthcare professionals. Our health care delivery systems are already taxed in parts of this nation and implementation of Obama’s plan is impracticable.

Finally, Obama’s energy plan sounds great until you look at more than just the surface. Obama claims to be for energy independance, however his voting record shows otherwise. In recent votes, he has voted against off-shore drilling and drilling in Alaska, both key proposals to decrease our dependance on foreign oil.

While I do not agree with McCain on some of his proposals such as when he participated in the McCain/Feingold immigration plan regard amnesty, I do believe that he is a man of great integrity.

Obama would not even be eligble for employment as an FBI or Secret Service Agent that is now protecting him due to his long-time associations with several people of ill repute. This is not a concern for John McCain. I close with one question-how can a man, who wouldn’t be eligible for employment in our nations agencies charged with providing the USA with security do to his personal and professional ties, be trusted as President of the United States?

We could not believe when we saw what was on the the front page of the Prespective section your newspaper. How about a “Fair” comparison of both candidates. Who you want to vote for is your choice and I think that you along with all liberal newspapers in this country have done the American people a grave injustice by pandering to one candidate and encouraging the hatred and violence that has and will occured.We have read your paper for many years. We tried to have it delivered to our home but you said it was not possible after we had paid fot a subscription which you did returned. We will no longer purchase the Times Union. A sad time for our Country!

As the editorial page editor, I figure this is as good a place as any to drop in a note on the issue raised here. Several commenters have complained about our showing bias in this endorsement, or not being balanced. While we did do what we believe are fair comparisons of Obama’s and McCain’s positions, the purpose of an editorial is to take a stance, not do an entirely objective presentation. The Perspective section, and our editorial pages, are precisely for that – taking one side, or the other (or even another, as the case may be).
Many newspapers across the country do endorsements; the TU is not unusual in doing this.
We offer forums like this Read and React page, as well as space for letters to the editor, as a way for people to agree or disagree with us. We see our opinion pages not as a place for us to simply give you our opinions, but to engage in a community conversation.
So, James and others, I sincerely invite you to stay and join that conversation, not walk away from it. — JJ

I skim or skip editorials endorsing candidates this year. I can’t get enthused about it. I prefer Obama over McCain, but for the first time in my life I might skip voting for president. I have a disgust with the process, the way the media manipulated it and treated Hillary Clinton so badly. I have no confidence in the fairness of a process that anoints people before voters decide. I can’t wash it away with pundits saying Obama just ran a better campaign. I prefer him over McCain, but it does not feel like enough.

It is clear that at this time in our nation, the economy is in crisis aevnd the Bush Administration has left our world in crisis. This has created a need for change. However, Obama’s personal and political background appears to be overlooked. Obama’s extensive connections with Islam and radical politics and associations with Communist and underground heroes. The Baracks have a twenty year religious affiliation withJeremiah Wright whose rageful sermons are anti-American. Obama has a naive antiwar foreign policy due to his inexperience. How can it be so easy for him to say the war must end nuclear weapons eradicated.Obama has a continued connection with Kenya and its politial violence. Obama’s confidence is actually just a disguise for a strong personality that appears to have swayed many troubled Americans, wanting a change from difficult times. I only hope that the average American is aware of these concerns, as well as the state the economy is in.
It is incorrect and very concerning that the Times Union does not inform the average American of the negatives as well as the positives of Obama. The information that is presented is biased.

I fully enjoyed the obituary notice of the Bush/Quaylin campaign, that graced the front page of today’s Perspective page of the TU. Now it is time to bury the corps and begin to rebuild the nation that Republican/Moonie/Neocon lack of leadership, has lain so low.

Because of FBI background checks required of individuals seeking Federal employment, Obama would never be hired, even for the US Postal Service. His ties, tenuous or not, to domestic terrorist Ayers would disqualify him. Additinally, don’t be fooled by Obama’s assertion that “those making under $250,000 will not have their taxes go up”. Obama proposes a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, which the oil companies then pass on to the consumer. Every American who drives a vehicle would pay more for their fuel because the oil companies just pass this tax on to the consumer – think back to the Carter administration’s debacle in this regard (higher costs, supply problems, even-odd fill-up days, run away inflation, etc.). The same could be said for corporate taxes. Raising taxes on certain sectors or on corporations affects ALL Americans, but is disproportionately detrimental to those who can afford it least – an unintended consequence. In respect to foreign policy, I’m not sure where Obama could re-build alliances. In France, Germany, Italy, and even Great Britian, there are leaders now in place that are much closer to those views espoused McCain, not Obama. Is Obama’s “brashness” going to force these leaders to abandon their core principles? In these times of soaring national debt, no American should be getting a tax break or additional tax credits; we must pay down the national debt and we must start yesterday. Our children and grand-children deserve no less. Obama is proposing over $1 trillion in new government spending which can only lead to additional national debt. We must remember that Bill Clinton promised tax cuts prior to becoming the President, but he could not deliver on that promise. Obama has no plan to reform Social Security, Medicare, or simplifying the tax codes. His tax plans will lead to run away inflation, job losses, lower treasury revenues, and will further deplete American’s 401K’s. His plans may have worked in a different economic environment, but the Bush administration and Congress (Democrats and Republicans) have screwed the American people for years to come with their lavish spending and lack of critical financial oversight. We’re in for tough times, but they don’t have to be tougher.

I am so disappointed with the one sided perspective of the Times Union that I am strongly considering cancelling my subscription. History will prove that George Bush was a better President than the media has portrayed him to be. The economy was consistently improving after 9/11 until the housing bubble burst. The housing bubble formed because the Democratic Congress forced Fanny Mae to grant mortgages to people who were poor risks. President Bush and John McCain consistently warned an arrogant Democratic Congress to correct the problems to no avail. To blame the President now is ludicrous.
Doesn’t anyone wonder why Bill Ayers, a self proclaimed anarachist and Marxist (as recent as 2002)would kick off Obama’s campaign. Would he do that for someone who did not hold his views. His ideas are much too extreme to think so. Obama and his friends have one intention – to destroy the American capitalist system and replace it with a socialist system. Considering the fact that socialism has not worked elsewhere why would anyone vote for him? Because the media hasn’t been honest. The voters are in the dark.

As a member of the much bantered about “middle class,” I not only find the TU’s editorial “Obama for President” to be somewhat predictable but more importantly downright disturbing. (It reads more like an Obama/Biden press release than a thoughtfully crafted and well reasoned argument.) Shame on the Editors of the TU, and shame on anyone who accepts this bit of propaganda as “journalism.”

Numerous examples of flawed reasoning and half truths appear throughout this work…”We are where we are in large part because of the policies and failures of President Bush.” Granted, mistakes have been made in the Whitehouse over the past 8 years, to expect otherwise would be both unrealistic and naive. But it is equally unrealistic and naive to lay every ill in this Nation at the feet of our President. Surely our elected officials in Congress must bear at least a portion of the responsibility for “the failed policies of the past 8 years.”

The real point here is that “Change” in America is not going to come from Barack Obama, as the editors of the TU would have us believe. Rather, true change will only occur in this Nation when we the American people stop treating our national elections as popularity contests, and electing our national leaders on the basis of 20 second “sound bites,” campaign promises or political adds.

If you want “Change” take the time to look at each candidates positions and policies, research thier past voting records, accomplishments and experience. We must dig in to the issues, educate ourselves and become more actively involved in our own governance.

One of the central principles upon which this great Nation is founded is that of individual liberty. Unfortunately, what most have forgotten is that with individual liberty comes individual responsibility. Responsibility to exercise our duty to vote certainly, but also responsibility to educate ourselves so that we may discern the best use of that vote for the betterment of our society and the American way of life.

Kate – when you don’t vote, you are in actuality casting a vote for the candidate who wins and that would be a tragedy if it ended up being the continuation of the rapine dogma of the Bush/Cheney cabal that has done so much harm to the country.

As a voter who has previously voted for McCain in every NY Republican primary he has ever run in, I want to congratulate you for your excellent and well-considered editorial in support of Obama. Contrary to some of the previous reader comments regarding your endorsement,I feel it is a newspaper’s responsibility to give explanitory editorial support in elections provided the reasoning is truthfull. You can continue my subscription which I have had for over 50 years.

Newspapers make endorsements in elections all the time. This is not new.
Disagreeing with the choice is one thing, being shocked that an endorsement is being made is surprising.

And choosing not to vote is such a sad decision to make, especially in the name of Hillary Clinton. Hillary would not support anyone making this decision. How can anyone who claims to support her think not voting is the correct response?

Many countries do not have the luxury to vote. Many in our history have had to fight for the right to vote. Don’t throw it away.

A eulogy for the Mccain Campaign seems appropriate ( along with a ‘I TOLD YOU SO, tu- IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH GOP’ers- look what happens)

John McCain has simply failed to convince Americans why we should allow another four years of a republican in the white house.

John McCain has run a botched campaign. Every bit of CW that I have ever listened to states: you campaign toward the base to win the nomination, but you move to the center to win the election. His choice of Pailin, was a blunder that was of his own making. Pandering to the right wing of the republican party has cost him any chance of winning over the independent voter of either party. He had a chance to win some democrats if he had stayed true to course, but instead he chose Pailin. Why John?

John MCain has tried to use fear to move the American voter. he has attacked Obama’s ideas, but has not proven to the American people that his ideas are better. Hence, the attack mode.. OOOHHH be very afraid of the arab, the muslim, the socialist, the tax raiser, the naive diplomat, the un-tested commander in chief.. you name it.. The old saying really rings true, the first to use his fists is the one who has run out of ideas. In this election, I believe that Americans are paying far closer attention to what the canddiates are saying and I see that Americans are not going to fall for the same old, same old ROVE tactics of fear. I hope that Americans are fed up with being treated like children and are ready for a president with strong, consistent, intelligent ideas, instead of a fear mongering presidential candidate.

Yes, as an independent ( not registered with either party) there was a time when I would have considered for voting for John McCain. But the John mcCain that I was willing to listen to is NOT the same John McCain out there inciting hatred and diviseness amongst Americans by using fear. I see a snarky old man attempting to incite his supporters by sarcasm and name calling and it just makes me cringe.

The John mcCain that I was willing to listen to was the John MCain who had the gravitas to tell the right wing of the republican party that your beliefs do not represent the beliefs of the majority of Americans.

I am sorry, but I have not seen that John MCain for quite some time because he began to lose traction and instead of trying to work harder to bring Americans together , especially during the tough times ahead for the U.S., he chose to pander to the extremists in the republican party . He can Thank Rick Davis for underestimating the fact that Americans are fed up with old time GOP smear and hate tactics.

Who has “flip-flopped” on his ideals during this campaign?

John McCain..

I just hope that after he loses this election that he has the sense of country that he has so often spoken about to go in front of the American people and return to those ideals that I admired and say that it is time to put all the BS partisanship aside and really try to help our country move forward. Maybe then, he will gain my respect again.

Your Obama for president editorial is superb. Your opening statement – “On every issue, and in every area that counts, the differences between the candidates for president of the United States this year could not be clearer. Nor could the choice.” – was perfect.

Your format allowed a concise presentation of important details regarding the positions of each candidate. As someone who has tried hard to become an informed voter, I greatly appreciate the careful reporting on the really important issues that should decide this most crucial election.

Finally, the layout of your editorial was a beautiful melding of design and information, making the front page of the Perspective section a wonderful collectors item. Thanks for all your hard work on this and on your newspaper in general.

I’d also like to mention that I enjoyed Casey Seiler’s column at the bottom of the page.

For the most part, the fact that the media strongly supports a very liberal viewpoint is a given. But, to use their medium in an unfair advantage prior to an election is deplorable. I am referring to an article that appeared in the 10/26/08 edition of the Times Union on the Perspective section “Obama for president”. To influence its subscribers into a one-sided way of thinking is definitely giving the Democratic Campaign to elect Obama, an advantage. This is similar to the fact that Obama originally said he would not accept public campaign contributions and then went back on his word to gain an unfair advantage. If Obama goes back on his word in this instance, how can we believe that he will not do the same on other issues?

It worries me that the American population is so willing to accept Obama’s promises. You must be careful what type of change you will really receive when he is elected and at what cost to the taxpayers? Someone has to foot the bill for all his proposed programs. In all the presidential debates, Obama was very vague on his answers to questions about his ties to radical and extremist public figures. He never really answered those questions. Obama either avoided the issues or answered that “he was only 8 years old” at the time. There must be a valid reason why he would never pass the FBI background checks.

The media’s duty is to inform the public. However, to give equal time to the Republican candidate, let’s see an article on why we should vote for McCain… Before we place blame on any candidate for past issues, let’s remember we have a democratic-controlled Congress who passed those laws. It’s time to get with the program…Albany Times Union! As a subscriber, it’s time to cancel and give the TU a rest.

Once again the liberal media has their own agenda and opinions and are shoving it down our throats. I was not pleased at all to pay for a Times Union today and have a full page of “we love Barack Obama”. It is in our face daily on the internet, papers, TV, magazines etc. – enough already! I do not need the Times Union to tell me who to vote for. Keep your opinions to yourself!

You make the statement that Sen. Obama has a “detailed, credible, persuasive and encouraging vision for change” What exactly has the junior senator done in Washington over the past two years to lend credence to this statement, lip service not withstanding? I see Sen. Obama as nothing more than a puppet for his party to further push their socialist agenda upon Americans. As a news media outlet you should be ashamed to show such a bias.

I now realize that the TU is just like the NY Times, too liberal for me and I guess I will now give up reading the TU. It is totally inappropriate to ask the readers to vote for one party or another. Let individuals make there own decisions without incouragement from a local newspaper. And by the way, what makes you think socialisim is the way to go. Never must we vote to give up any of our freedoms. Never must we spread the wealth. Work for what you want in life and realize your spending limits. If you can’t afford the gold jewelry, numerous pierced earrings, cell phones or leather jackets you must learn to live without them. Why should someone else have to foot the bill for you.

I am canceling my subscription and please do not ever disturb my household again with your annoying sales calls. The Times Union is no longer my paper of choice. It should not have stuck its neck in this far, endorsing one candidate over another. I just want to read the unbiased facts. Both candidate sway with the issues depending on the time and place; one picked a vice presidential running mate who is clever but inexperienced in world affairs, the other picked a running mate who has been in the middle of world affairs for many years, but still does not get it. He just is…how can I put this…a stupid man. One has proven his love and devotion for his country and fellow man time and time again; he is running unselfishly because he believes the country needs a person with this devotion to represent it. The other has proven time and time again that he is in this for himself and because he talks a good talk, I have read that he is trained in the art of hypnotic speech, he and his America hating, do nothing for society wife, will be living off of our tax money in the White House.

BRAVO Times Union!! Your editorial on Obama was excellent. I think it is wonderful that you are endorsing the candidate that is the most intelligent, the most eloquent speaker, and by-far has presented to this country, policies that would actually move this country into the future and possibly catch up to our European neighbors. It is beyond me that so many people still can’t see the light. They want to stick with the “old” policies, (the Bush administration) which would be the same under McCain. We see it has not been working for the past 8 years and we need change and that is what Obama is all about. It is sad that people would rather support their party than make a change and pick the most logical candidate which, as you have greatly pointed out is Barack Obama!!

Why do we take this so personally? As I read through these comments about canceling subscriptions, bias etc I can’t help but wonder? Does anyone really base their actual vote on what a newspaper has to say? Or does anyone base their vote on a celebrity endorsement? It’s actually been proven that often a celebrity endorsement can hurt a candidate. Perhaps its the same for a newspaper endorsement. I am of the belief that the actual people who will take the time and wait on long lines to vote are intelligent enough to know that a newspaper or celebrity endorsement means nothing. Personally over the years I have never been honest with any phone call or exit polling that I come in contact with and I think about 50% of the country doesn’t trust the media (TV and newsprint) and will actually lie to them when it comes to polls.

I applaud the Times Union for clearly outlining Barack Obama’s issues in this campaign. The facts cannot be disputed. Many of the above comments, mirror the negativity of the McCain campaign from the beginning of this election process. Obama’s campaign is not about socialism it is about assisting those in need.It is about coming together as a country and showing compassion and giving hope to so many. It is about changing the dismal course that our country has been on with regards to the war in the Middle East. It is about gaining respect, once again, in the foreign arena where it has been lost for some time now. It is about positively impacting the environment with immediate change now so that our children can grow up in a cleaner world. It is about rebuilding our economy and surviving the financial crisis brought about by the deregulation put in place by a Republican congress, way back when. This opinion is shared by so many, not just, as many have described the Times Union, as the “liberal media”. I have so much respect for a newspaper that has presented the facts. As Americans ,what more could we ask for in a newspaper. Americans deserve hope not negativity in this election. Obama represents hope. The McCain/Palin rallies incite hatred and negativity. I know the kind of America that I want for my children. It is an America, where the negativity and failed policies of the present are replaced with compassion, fairness, and hope for the future. Obama gets my vote this election day.

I am not half as upset about the TU endorsement of Obama as I am about the overwhelming bias of even the news sections over the past year. I would not have expected otherwise from a paper that has been in the tank for Obama since day one.

There was a serious error though. You forgot to airbrush the halo over his head.

I remind all of you who were madly in love with Spitzer what happened six months after he was in office. The same 70% who were in love with him on election day wanted him out of office and this was even before he got caught with the hooker! We probably won’t be so lucky this time and even if we were the thought of that buffoon Biden taking over is almost as scary as Obama.

If you vote for Obama because you believe in him and socialism then fine. Live with the results. If you vote for Obama because you hate Bush then you are as dumb as a tree stump.

Before someone accuses me of being a rabid Republican, I am a Registered Independent who has twice voted for Hillary and find myself feeling very supportive of the job our new Governor is doing, even though he is a tad too liberal. We are again in a lesser of two evils situation.

Your endorsement of Obama is both inevitable and superfluous. Surely, the rejection of McCain/Palin should not require an almost-full-page explanation. And why, except for long-standing newspaper tradition, do you bother? (It’s interesting that so many of the comments above reflect an ignorance of that tradition – and of so much else.)

If you want to do something useful and interesting, please explain why I, whose vote cannot possibly affect the outcome, should vote for Obama (whom I suspect will turn out to be a Clinton with class) rather than Nader who has spent a lifetime fighting for values I espouse.

Anyone in NYS who might be influenced by your endorsement will not be choosing a president; we will merely be expressing an opinion. But our vote will be interpreted as a “mandate” for whatever policies “our” candidate subsequently supports, no matter how noxious and/or foolhardy we may consider those policies. Thus a vote for either Obama or McCain constitutes a vote AGAINST single-payer health care and FOR the maintenance and expansion of the American Empire, among other things. That’s not what I want to say at the polls.